Putin has been facilitating migration into Europe to destabilise society

[ThisAlertRaven]

This Daily Telegraph article today explains how Putin has been supporting migration into Europe. And it's obviously been working as Reform etc are using it radicalise people!!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/08/russia-putin-immigrants-weapons-hybrid-warfare-libya/#comment

I am left wing and unfortunately the loons who are dominating are Extreme Left or Extreme Liberals. The old traditional values of the left (welfare, pensions, education for all, etc) are ignored and instead what we are dealing with is loony tunes Extreme Liberalism promoting illiteracy, progressive education, the interests of tiny groups of society to the exclusion of the interests of all society.

I think we should coin a new name for it - Extreme Liberalism

And we all know that extreme anything usually ends in tears.

It sounds as though you studied in Russia quite a long time ago and it was a one year thing part of a degree?

When you say you studied their society and politics for decades was this in the UK working for one of the foundations?

Could you explain what the end game is? Do you think that Russia wants to conquer western Europe and then the US? Do you know why? Because we don't have a whole lot going for us at the moment, I am not sure why anyone would want to conquer us.

Some people say "like Hitler" but Hitler had the Lebensraum policy to do with getting extra farmland to feed Germans - Russia clearly doesn't have the same pressure and so I doubt this is why they would march west.

Caesar conquered for the hell of it... but it was mostly pretty straightforward and so quite different from today. Anyone trying to conquer the west today would not just be looking at NATO they'd also be looking at guerillas, terrorists, extreme nationalists. So I don't think that is it either.

And what do we have? We aren't rich in natural resources, we are a failed state... why on earth would they want to conquer us?

And as for destablising, again the question would be why? They want trading partners so destablising would not be useful.

I just googled "who funds migration observatory" (ie your source) and found amongst others "unbound philanthropy" which I then googled and found:

"Unbound Philanthropy is a New York City-based left-wing donor affinity group that primarily funds groups that support left-of-center liberal expansionist immigration policies.
Unbound has close ties to George Soros’s Open Society Foundations through the group’s executive director, Taryn Higashi. Higashi sits on an advisory board of Open Society Foundations and is an alumna of the left-of-center Ford Foundation where she worked on immigrant and refugee issues.
Overview
Unbound Philanthropy is an organization which primarily focuses on the immigration issue. It is based in New York City. It was formed in 2003 and did not get its first staff member until 2008.
The organization funds traditional legal aid for immigrants. It also funds activist campaigns and projects that encourage immigrant integration"

Source: InfluenceWatch website.

NB this was a 2 second google.

The posters you are mocking are pointing out to you that the poor in the UK are getting poorer and average households now are being crippled by fuel, food costs. Things are out of balance.

The poster explained that the information was not all in once place, and it required looking at more than one source to find. Your comment "people who mistake their feelings and stereotypes as facts" was therefore not on point?

The source for the opinion you copied and pasted:

Further, the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford states its funders clearly on its own website, and Unbound Philanthropy (a not-for-profit) are one of 14 current funders. Others include the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Research England (a public body), Oxford University’s John Fell Fund, and so on.

The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford performs legitimate research. Really not much of a gotcha.

Thanks for that - you are saying that InfluenceWatch is run by CRC. I think for "liberal" they probably mean "extreme liberal" if you see my post on that but in any event perhaps the time has come to change the law around this and regulate, ensure that all foundations and giving were made very easy to track. I should have mentioned in my last post the VAST sums of money involved re the funding groups I mentioned. The way the funding is done is so difficult to keep track of and yet has so much influence, and according to interview this is intended, so it means that you have non governmental institutions acting as governments within governments almost. As you indicate other groups push back. It isn't ideal, is it? With democracies surely we need to be know all the relevant information in relation to governance and influences before we vote?

Actually, I pointed out that my post was based on literally a rapid google of one of the funders - I used the word "amongst others". And obviously if it was a rapid google it would be based on what I found on the websites, as you say. The problem is that you have to dig around for each funder, and then the funder of the funders - this is what causes confusion and it is this I think should be regulated to ensure clear and rapid transparency. So no "gotcha" from my side, more pointing out that clearer information would be useful.

The situation isn't exactly as you suggest, though, I don't think, unless I misunderstand you - I suspect that if you carried on looking at funding of funding of funding you would find some interesting influences in parts of academia - though this has been the case time to time since the 60s.

Probably better that we regulate to make it easier to track things, both ways, do you agree?

@Ballosh, none of this was in your earlier post, you simply queried/undermined the previous poster’s source for the figures she provided.

The conversation was about migrants and social housing.

One of my earlier posts was about Extreme Liberalism and the negative effect of that on traditional left values.

Do you support the OP, which basically shows concern that immigration destablises? Yet you also defend organisations which support immigration? If so, I am somewhat confused.

I don’t have a side and am not posting with an agenda or angle.

I just found your earlier post misleading and your subsequent post – (sorry) – disingenuous and incoherent. Nothing personal.

If you don't have a side or agenda then okay, I hear what you say, but there is nothing misleading or incoherent about any of my posts.

Let me know what it is you do not understand. I will explain the point(s) again.

Don't worry, I won't take your posts personally.

I understood perfectly, thanks. I don’t think there is anything more to say.

European Plain - Wikipedia
Russia has a very flat border to the West. Its basically all steppe through which various invaders have ridden horses/driven tanks through over the centuries. Now eventually the vastness of Russia and the winter defeats these invaders - but at massive human cost. I think its hard to put yourself in that mindset when you have a sea or mountains surrounding you. This explains Russia's angst about wanting a buffer zone by either occupying or controlling the politics of their neighbours. The problem is, the land they have taken/want to take in Ukraine is also flat. So it won't be enough - if anything it expands their hard to defend border and increases the NATO countries they border with. To feel "secure" Russia would need to push all the way to at least the Carpinthian mountains. But I imagine the Poles would have an opinion on this for one. Its not achievable or something Europe can afford to let them achieve.

Russia also don't trust the West/Europe at all. To be fair there are historical reasons for this (see invasions) although Russia has also done its fair share of shenanigans. But its a low trust quite society (that has been through a lot), headed by a man who is both deeply paranoid and specifically resentful of the West and what he sees as its role in the catastrophic breakup of the Soviet Union. This is no secret. Destabilising the West as a strategy is also no secret and is rational if you start from Putin's mindset. That doesn't mean we go in all guns blazing and pick fights unnecessarily. But saying "there is no rational reason for them to do this" is ignoring that no countries foreign policy is "rational" in the sense you are imagining - its shaped by history and geography and personalities and trauma. Its not just "everyone wants to trade, everyone wants a Mcdonalds, everyone wants to be American really". And besides, America isn't always rational either (see Trump but also the hugely destabilising war on terror).

You understood perfectly but thought you'd fling out a few insults like "incoherent" and "misleading"??

I take it that nothing was in fact incoherent or misleading, as it was all perfectly clear, so an apology would be nice.

Caesar didn't just conquer for the hell of it by the way. He did so because it was necessary for his prestige/political ambitions of the time. Fighting a successful military campaign and coming home with a large tribute was how you proved your worth for public office. In Caesars case it also meant he was in control of a large army which came in useful later. Besides - many of his contemporaries (rivals) were quite dismissive of his victories at the time - pointing out that all he had succeeded in doing was taking land which only had tin and inferior slaves who couldn't even read or write (rude).

I am open to reading any data that contradicts what I have sourced and posted.

So far not one poster has opted to provide that. So yes I am mocking the notion that I should accept people’s feelings as facts.

Shoot the source all you like but do you challenge the data?

And people can comment on the increase in cost of living which I have not disputed but I am responding to the specific claim made about social housing which my own searching suggests are false. So put the goalposts back where you found them.

Why is it so hard for people to source their claims?

It's 2025.

This is not a revelation.

Belarus has also done the same in particularly stark and concerning ways.

I can't quite wrap my head around why people have been so out of touch with this reality for so long.

Oh. Thanks for this. So @Ballosh challenges a source (but none of the data) using a quote from an even more biased source.

Cool.

Cool.

That's true, although until recently the media and general narrative was it's all good.

A few years ago and a similar post went down like a lead balloon.

The poster claims that the data was not in one place. I am more than capable of reading multiple links if the poster is able to provide them. They confidently stated that most social housing goes to migrants. For them to make that claim they must have seen evidence and data. I am asking for them to provide sources.

Sorry that I don’t consider “Source - Dude Trust Me” to be adequate evidence. Everything I have searched contradicts their claim so I am interested to see the sources they are using.

Why are you so opposed to people citing their claims? Why do you want me to just believe people out of some form of faith?

My comment was absolutely on point because that poster has no facts to support their claims.

Theres been news articles on this for years.

Sorry I disagree.

People not wishing to see it, is different to it clearly having been active policy...

Somewhat buts it's been less mainstream

Eg I mostly picked up on it from BBC WS a while back and mentioning it here was pretty much the usual backlash.

Maybe people have ignored it but there's no doubt the headlining which prompted this thread is more prominent

But I didn't challenge your source or the information. I pointed out that your source was part of group which funds pro immigration activity. Because that is relevant when reading your post because you were quoting your sources as "fact" and when reviewing sources it is important to be aware if they are funded and who by and in that light to review the information.

Does that make my source "more biased" - no. But the same thing applies - when reviewing the information from a source be aware of the funders! Tis common sense.

I would like to know what you think about the fact that your source is basically funded by extremely pro immigration, extreme liberal groups. It is interesting, do you not think? And do you agree with the OP or disagree?